Also with the new skill system you will be less likely to find the 2 of the same build with the exact same items.
Wrong. People will find optimum builds and copy them, just as in D2. Which means the same items will be coveted.
I don't really see how removing stat allocation matters, if you allowed people to allocate stats, they would just pour it all in vit with min str and dex (with few exceptions). Stats really don't customize at all.
Again, you're over-simplifying and assuming based on your own playstyle, while ignoring the plethora of published web pages that detail large numbers of effective class variants with wildly varying stats. Wrong again.
Stat based items would do the job way better. Say you want to make a build that uses a lot of mana. You would have to find an item that gives you more mana or energy, and assuming that duping is impossible in d3 you might have to use an alternative to the best +mana item, since its rarity would jack up the price and only a few leet and lucky players would obtain it.
This is only the case if you, as in WoW, assume that all classes have very specific functions, which is radically different from how D1 and especially D2 were conceived. Under a auto-stat system, builds like Singing Barbs and Meleesorcs are eliminated, as are the capacity for humorous competitions like Naked Rallies.
Just because YOU don't play that way doesn't mean HUNDREDS of others don't. Stop being so close minded please, its getting tiresome.
I only had to watch the first minute of the interview to see that its all political doublespeak.
How exactly did they "find" the interface to be unecessary? Have they even played their own game?
Online people are not a bunch of My Little Ponies, who just want friends and to play happily together. Battle.Net is composed of whiners, griefers, beggars, and more.
I can already see the potential for abuse. PKer guy joins a game, auto-parties up, sees where the rest of the players are, finds them, hostiles and kills them.
That's a MUCH better solution then having to force said PKer to find the people which gives them plenty of time to town portal or leave the game.
And what of the server lag caused by "Giev SOJ PLZ!!!11" players who are constantly getting booted and joining games, causing those with slightly slower connections to be unable to join the game that was made?
Its head in the sand mentality combined with massive naivete. Truly, sad.
Maybe the p2p will expand the amount of players per game. Steam does its servers differently. Individuals pay monthly for servers, it costs $1.45 per slot per month. So if I wanted to make a server with 32 people, I would have to pay $46.40. It does not cost anything to join the games, but to get special privileges, such as admin you usually have to pay $10 a month. Steam is still raping peoples wallets, but only the select few who want to create a server to their liking.
Let me know the day that Blizzard offers admin privileges to players for $10 a month. LAWL.
Steam is not "raping people's wallets" because the business model is different. As well, because people are paying for the servers, they're responsible for content, have total control over who gets in, can advertise all they want, and actually generate cash both from advertising and donations.
I'm not denying that the expansions to those games added a few nice satisfying campaigns, several new units and what not. I'm just placing them in comparison to WoW expansions.
Sigh. As am I. The expansions were the same scope as the original in size. Comparing them directly to a different game from a different genre that has hundreds of millions of dollars for development is foolish at best, intentionally misleading at worst.
Small? Outland and Northrend are pretty big, they add ALOT of gameplay. And the storyline in WoW is basically continuous through the expansions in a sense. Do you follow the wow lore and story?
Compared to the size of Azeroth? Relative to the original's size, the expansions are small in scope. I'm not a lore geek, but I do know the storyline is contiguous. Not sure what you're trying to get at there, since my comparison stated as much.
And Sure you may argue that wow is an mmo, but look at Starcraft 2 -- see nows thats something. 28-32 hours of gameplay per campaign, thats alot of content.
I paid $49.99 for Morrowind/Oblivion/Diablo 2. All three games served up hundreds if not thousands of hours of playtime. SC2's split into 3 separate releases is nothing more than a money making vehicle.
Now I highly doubt Diabo 3 would be pay to play... but if it were.. I'm sure Blizzard would definitly deliver. We'd see alot more content, we'd have more support, more perks, a more secure battle.net, and the list goes on. Maybe it wouldnt be exactly 15 dollars a month, since its the scope of the game is not that of an mmo like wow, but we'd be seeing were our money is going.
Yes, into the pockets of developers and corporate who know they have a soft, pliable playerbase who will accept whatever bones are thrown to them. Whether its MMO streaming or standalone expansions, the business model for both includes profit. Everything you cited is included as part of the development cycle and costs, I really wish people would stop discussing things they have no knowledge of.
And well maybe some of the extra additions that the Diablo 3 team is adding to battle.net specifically for diablo 3 are just outside of Blizzard's Diablo 3 budget. I'm sure the features they monetize wont be game breaking, or unreasonably expensive. Jay wilson said "we kindof have to" for a reason.
Diablo 3's budget? Do you honestly think that the profits from WoW are solely funneled into WoW only? Get a clue, or take a business management course, then come back and post rationally. He said they have to because the corporate nature develops greed, and they see an opportunity to empty our pockets, they're not friggin' Oliver Twist!
Also, this might be irrelevent to your point, I just wanted to point out that in a recent interveiw with Rob Pardo, he said that they're currently looking at 8 players for game size. 4 Players was for the demo.
We'll see. In other interviews its been stated that the 4 player size was due to graphical intensity and server strain apparently. Would be nice to get some official input on that.
Do any of those have as many expansions as WoW? If not, you are reducing the amount of content that can be produced. Who would pay to play guild wars?
Starcraft->Insurrection->Retribution->Brood War
WoW->BC->WoTLK
The answer is yes. So no, the amount of content is not being reduced.
In answer to your second question, they chose the expansion model because first, its their first game, and difficult to justify a P2P system on an MMO from a startup company. Second, they didn't want to compete with WoW directly, seeing as it had been established for quite some time already.
It would be like some well received Indie movie trying to compete with the Dark Knight on release day.
Now IF Guild Wars was more involved, with persistent worlds, a profession system and other refinements as found in WoW, they could very easily charge a P2P system. But the critical difference is GW wasn't designed from the outset as a persistent state MMO, but an instanced PvE/PvP vehicle.
Indeed, look at the frikin wizard gameplay video. Using those multiple skills at once! Now lets see a D2 synergies and sorc that wants a powerfull Blizzard for example, You have at least 3 synergies for blizzard and you pretty much mostly use only blizzard.
Right, if that was your CHOICE. In the meantime, other Blizzard sorcs were using their other 3 or 4 maxed skills in situations that made Blizzard tactically unuseable. So just because your playstyle differs, don't assume everyone else is the same.
Why spend those 60 skills on other spells that you really don't even use much. Also having this build makes it pretty much impossible to kill cold immunes
Which encourages party play to bring along someone who can (such as a Fire/Lightning sorc or *gasp* another character type such as a Berzerk barb). This argument is dumb because D3 is going to be the same way, just look at the Wizard tree. Instead of spending, say 20 points on Frost Nova in D2 to max out the synergy and get two useful skills, in D3 you get 1 useful skill and have to max synergies that have no active effect.
. If we had 20 point passive skill that would boost cold spells we would have much more options in D2 but meh old game is an old game.
Oh, you mean like Cold Mastery? You did play D2 right?
Doesn't matter anymore since we are getting so much better game.
Right, what you're actually getting is a trumped and hyped up Gauntlet 3, not Diablo 3.
I rather put up a synergy skill that isn't a spell itself but which buffs many other damage dealing spells. And since not all of those skills are 20 pointers, I will have a lot of points to spend to many different spells which makes the game more enjoyable.
As in WoW, this doesn't mean you'll be able to use all skills at maximum effectiveness, is means you'll be pigeonholed into using even fewer skills than in D2. Again, look at the current Wizard tree, its something like 5 or 6 active skills per tree and then a bunch of 15 point synergies. So instead of using multiple skills that are effective even at low levels as in D2, such as the utility Lightning spells or the Barbs passives, you'll have to decide on one or two skills to use the entire game and max out the synergy. Yay for boring.
D2 Synergies opened some builds but also made many builds impossible. Tri element build became really hard to make viable in large games at hell. Even dual element builds suffer from damage loss. Bowazon requires maybe the most expensive gear in game to make it work like pre 1.10. Barbarians suffered a lot in killing power.
Balance changes is all. A build that can mow down everything without help is not exactly conducive to party play is it, which is why they made tri-element builds tough to manage. But I had no problems being effective as a Fire/Lightning or Cold/Lightning sorc.
And my Bowazon worked perfectly fine with average gear, I didn't need Windforce or any of the uber Runewords, it just meant killing slower in an effort to enact playbalance. And my Frenzy/Zerk Barb tore through crap like it was nobody's business. Perhaps you just sucked at the game?
Pre-LOD was the best system there was in D2 time, adding cast delays etc made it bad in LOD and synergies changed it even worse in 1.10. During 1.10 I haven't really have any character that I have enjoyed. Barbarian used to be the guaranteed thing that gave you pleasure, especially in Classic. Now that they made it so weak in 1.10 even that really makes me not want to play D2 anymore.
Balance. And you're complaining that your one character that was unstoppable was FORCED to rely on cooperation and others for support. Sounds odd that you guys are touting cooperation and party play, yet deride it in the game that preceds this one.
So the new system sounds so much better than what D2 has ever had. And looks too. They have this tought "having 6 skills you be using and some passives/buffs" sounds really good way to develop a skill system.
Right, because the fact that you used one skill and were angry when that didn't work anymore meant everyone was the same. Not everyone is a moron, all of my D2 characters were versatile and able to solo almost anywhere, but of course the questing part was more fun when you played with others who weren't spam bots or leechers.
So instead of playing games you whine about them.. Pay to play? Didn't they say that it won't require payment for being able to play it online, but some features may become under payments?
Bähähähää
No, I criticize games while still in the development stage so that the developers can get input back on the features in question. It only sounds like whining to those who are content to let games be spoonfed to them.
And as one recent interview mentioned that the P2P features are more in line with things like server transfers, the development cycle still has a long way to go. Unless the devs know what we want NOW, once the game is released it will be too late to change the base coding.
Thinking is your friend.
So if I like a game.. i'm a bootlicker?
If you like a game that is still months and years away from release, based on alpha testing and hype, then yes.
steam may be free but the games arent get it straight.
How much of a monthly fee do you pay for Team Fortress 2 after you buy it? Straight up comparing is valid, Steam = Battle.Net, TF2/D3 standalone game. Get it right.
pls do u really think that blizzard will release a game just b/c they are loyal to the gaming community,NO they are doing ti for the fucking money and dont think other wise.
Of course they won't release it for free, my comments to that were meant to illustrate the fact that Blizzard makes so much money that they could afford to and not be heavily impacted. But I never said they should or even that we deserve it.
and to those that say they will not buy th game stop bsing use i will guanturee you will buy the game at one point or another.
either way im getting the game and i hope not to see any of u complaing ppl in it
So despite the fact that you're wrong on almost every post you make, you still know what the entire gaming community is going to do? Okay....
im back i guess. Yes shall we compare GW (which ive played) to WoW (which ive played), one is p2p and has 10 millionish ppl and GW has last time i check about 200 thousand so hmm. are you fucking kidding me that GW pulls i the same amount of Cash as WoW?
Reading comprehension is your friend.
I never stated that GW makes the same amount as WoW. I said one uses a different business model than the other, and both are successful, especially given that GW is the IPO of a startup company, while WoW is built upon a huge fanbase from games that were released as far back as 1994...
You're far from knowing what constitutes a valid argument, why not let the adults handle it?
Quote from "Jugzor" »
Yeah but look at the content those expansions added.
Massive campaigns, several new units built upon the same storyline and engine.
Now look at the content WotLK is adding, and that TBC added.
Small world additions, 1 new race/class, built upon the same storyline and engine. And the intent is to eventually streamline those additions into the existing world, UNLIKE the RTS and Diablo expansions.
I'd actually love to see Diablo 3 go P2P, even though it's not. The benefits would definitly show, and 15$ a month is not alot of money... I bet that's not even 1% of the money you make in a month. Its only 50 cents a day.
D3 doing any sort of P2P feature whether monthly or micro is a deal breaker for me, not because its worthy or not, but because the scope of the game is SO small compared to the likes of games like WoW.
$15 a month is a HUGE amount of money relative to the benefit you get, a 4 person max game built ontop of a GUI chat server. And regardless of whether its a lot of money or not, trying to squeeze blood from the stone of the playerbase is an especially foolish move given the state of the world economy.
Its basically the same thing as giant financial institutions, through horrible corporate mismanagement getting bailed out. Blizzard makes money hand over fist, and to claim that they have to monetize features to survive is basically them saying we're a bunch of idiots and sheep.
I tottaly don't mind cause it goes along with their intention of enhancing the importance of items!
Ooh yay, another item grind game.
WoW used at least 50% Diablo 2 features, and Diablo 2 used 50% Diablo 1 features, and every single one of the developers watches movies, read books and hears music :rolleyes:
You might want to check your facts before making wild statements such as this. Show me where in WoW is the linear Act system, henchmen, etc. Diablo 2 used 100% of D1 features, they just got expanded upon and refined.
The question you need to ask yourself is who appeared first: the chicken or the egg??
If you knew even basic genetics, the chicken. This is no longer a zen question, stick with the tree falling metaphor.
Anyhow! Now that you're forced in a party it might become like this:
Hmmm... a game that FORCES people to play with someone they don't want to. I can't imagine where this might lead, such as spam bots constantly joining 3/4 games and advertising, or newbs doing the same and begging for whatever items pass for currency. Luckily we the player won't be able to avoid this situation since apparently no kick/boot controls will be given to the game's creator.
Lower levels enteres and asks for help or asks to join and the higher level will be like, well ah, what the heck, you're already in here. A new friendship will be made and everyone's totally happy.
Are you high?
I mean. When I first started D2, getting good friends was pretty easy. Now it's like. Why is my f list empty!?
So exactly what in D2 changed between when you started and now? Could it be that the game is 8 years old and that most of your friends have moved on? And your point is irrelevant anyways, since the party functionality within D2 hasn't changed.
But I do understand your point with the annoyance it could create but It's a minor impact that will be insignificant and insuperior to the ups of co-op gameplay with auto-party.
FORCING people to co-op play will just mean a plethora of people creating more 1 player only locked games, further bogging down the servers. In addition, the annoyance factor is incredibly high, given the nature of online gaming.
Taking away a player's options in a sequel is stupid. You add to, never subtract from, that's just poor or lazy design.
He is saying that because people are too cheap to pay for p2p, companies are encouraged to make these expansions to sell more content. Not the other way around like you implied where you think he meant that the lack of funds from p2p prevents these expansions from being made.
Are you familiar with Guild Wars? They purposefully chose an expansion based system as their business model, for a variety of reasons but also mainly to not compete with WoW. And according to their model of releasing regular priced expansions at regular intervals, they pull in roughly the same amount of money as a P2P subscription system with streamed content.
WoW not only charges P2P, but ALSO charges for expansions. So how does that fit into the either/or theory you guys expound? His assertion is wrong based on fact, UNLESS WoTLK is released as a FREE downloadable expansion, in which case he will be proven right. Ask me how likely I think that will be, no seriously go ahead...
And again, because of Blizzard's immense commercial success, their business models are not as hampered by limited cash flow as some others.
lmaooo you guys are so upset over something that will benefit your videogame...i dnt think they will implement a p2p thing but if they do it will only b 5 bucks def not 15..and if its 15 bucks who cares it makes expansions content uprgardes( new items, monsters maps,etc) and adjustments for us (skills less powerful more powerful weaker monsters, les mobs, more mobs, more/less diversity in mobs so really this isnt a bad thing if it does happen
lmaooo...
Most game developers already do all of that for their online capable games. You know what they charge?
ZERO $.
No one should pay for gameplay balancing that should have been completed in beta. And developers these days are notorious for releasing games before they're done and adding in deleted content later as "added material." As an example, in the game Oblivion, there were many files in the Construction Set that were placeholders for official "DLC" released later on a microtransaction basis.
Whether it was due to the game being rushed or because it was intentional is irrelevant. What should have happened was the missing content be added back in as a content patch such as companies like Arena.Net and Valve do all the time.
Also, charging fees is a slippery slope, and once started the fees continue to get higher until subscribers start to flee, which is then the market maximum. For me, given D3's dearth of features compared to a game like WoW, that maximum is $0.
It's cheap bastards like you that keep a game from making a steady monetary gain that prompts the developers to produce expansions. You are ultimately reducing the possible content the diablo team could produce.
According to your logic then, Lord of Destruction could never have been released. Or Brood War for that matter. Or Beyond the Dark Portal, and the Frozen Throne. All expansions that were developed and released without any prior P2P content.
As long as the stories are different then it doesn't make much difference does it? I've never played WoW, but I'm pretty damn sure it's skills ripped off Diablo. There are actually more skills this time. I counted 56 for the wiz.
The new inventory forces you to make decisions too...
All I was saying is that a tile system with size encumbrance is more realistic.
A horribly narrow minded and unintelligent view.
A rather strong statement considering your entire post is based on a false assumption.
Given that there are more skills and assuming that there are more items with greater diversity, I will have to say that your point is completely invalid.
There aren't more skills and the assumption of more items with more diversity is based off a false assumption. GIVEN that the current idea is for automatic stats, the newly pigeonholed classes won't need as varied an assortment of items since all classes will eventually need the same ones.
There will be more diverse builds, and therefore different builds may find the occulus equivalent inferior to their particular build.
Please tell me how a system that restricts builds to skill specialization is more diverse than a system that uses both skill specialization and stat placement?
The variants; skill tree, skill empowerment, and gear will give greater customization than; skill tree, stats, and gear.
How exactly? In D2, what you call "skill empowerment" was released as skill synergies with the advent of the LoD expansion. So how does D3's 3 avenues of customization add up to more than D2's 4? That's screwy math if you ask me.
Since stats are really just a boring attribute, the customization is going from 2 fold in d2, to 3 fold in d3(not including sex).
Class customization is mechanics, most build discussion in ANY game capable of choosing customized classes does not include sex or even race since those are largely cosmetic in nature and offer no inherent bonus or penalty. Stats a boring attribute? Tell that to people who had a great time playing Singing Barbs and Energy Sorcs.
It's not the whiners that piss me off. It's the ignorant bastards like you that spew ill-thought judgements instead of looking at the changes with a truly critical eye, and understanding fully, their implications. Try to think a little harder next time bubby.
Might want to look into a mirror sometime. Although, if you're honest with yourself, you may not like what you see...
0
Point is, you and so many others' arguments are based on opinion, conjecture, and basically not knowing the facts, not to mention spurious logic.
You try to compare Steam to it, then when you fail, instead of admitting you're wrong, drag out the point by stating things like the above.
You are wrong, deal with it.
0
Wrong. People will find optimum builds and copy them, just as in D2. Which means the same items will be coveted.
Again, you're over-simplifying and assuming based on your own playstyle, while ignoring the plethora of published web pages that detail large numbers of effective class variants with wildly varying stats. Wrong again.
This is only the case if you, as in WoW, assume that all classes have very specific functions, which is radically different from how D1 and especially D2 were conceived. Under a auto-stat system, builds like Singing Barbs and Meleesorcs are eliminated, as are the capacity for humorous competitions like Naked Rallies.
Just because YOU don't play that way doesn't mean HUNDREDS of others don't. Stop being so close minded please, its getting tiresome.
0
Lol.
I only had to watch the first minute of the interview to see that its all political doublespeak.
How exactly did they "find" the interface to be unecessary? Have they even played their own game?
Online people are not a bunch of My Little Ponies, who just want friends and to play happily together. Battle.Net is composed of whiners, griefers, beggars, and more.
I can already see the potential for abuse. PKer guy joins a game, auto-parties up, sees where the rest of the players are, finds them, hostiles and kills them.
That's a MUCH better solution then having to force said PKer to find the people which gives them plenty of time to town portal or leave the game.
And what of the server lag caused by "Giev SOJ PLZ!!!11" players who are constantly getting booted and joining games, causing those with slightly slower connections to be unable to join the game that was made?
Its head in the sand mentality combined with massive naivete. Truly, sad.
0
Let me know the day that Blizzard offers admin privileges to players for $10 a month. LAWL.
Steam is not "raping people's wallets" because the business model is different. As well, because people are paying for the servers, they're responsible for content, have total control over who gets in, can advertise all they want, and actually generate cash both from advertising and donations.
Does WoW offer that? Didn't think so.
0
Sigh. As am I. The expansions were the same scope as the original in size. Comparing them directly to a different game from a different genre that has hundreds of millions of dollars for development is foolish at best, intentionally misleading at worst.
Compared to the size of Azeroth? Relative to the original's size, the expansions are small in scope. I'm not a lore geek, but I do know the storyline is contiguous. Not sure what you're trying to get at there, since my comparison stated as much.
I paid $49.99 for Morrowind/Oblivion/Diablo 2. All three games served up hundreds if not thousands of hours of playtime. SC2's split into 3 separate releases is nothing more than a money making vehicle.
Yes, into the pockets of developers and corporate who know they have a soft, pliable playerbase who will accept whatever bones are thrown to them. Whether its MMO streaming or standalone expansions, the business model for both includes profit. Everything you cited is included as part of the development cycle and costs, I really wish people would stop discussing things they have no knowledge of.
Diablo 3's budget? Do you honestly think that the profits from WoW are solely funneled into WoW only? Get a clue, or take a business management course, then come back and post rationally. He said they have to because the corporate nature develops greed, and they see an opportunity to empty our pockets, they're not friggin' Oliver Twist!
We'll see. In other interviews its been stated that the 4 player size was due to graphical intensity and server strain apparently. Would be nice to get some official input on that.
0
Starcraft->Insurrection->Retribution->Brood War
WoW->BC->WoTLK
The answer is yes. So no, the amount of content is not being reduced.
In answer to your second question, they chose the expansion model because first, its their first game, and difficult to justify a P2P system on an MMO from a startup company. Second, they didn't want to compete with WoW directly, seeing as it had been established for quite some time already.
It would be like some well received Indie movie trying to compete with the Dark Knight on release day.
Now IF Guild Wars was more involved, with persistent worlds, a profession system and other refinements as found in WoW, they could very easily charge a P2P system. But the critical difference is GW wasn't designed from the outset as a persistent state MMO, but an instanced PvE/PvP vehicle.
Thinking is your friend.
0
Right, if that was your CHOICE. In the meantime, other Blizzard sorcs were using their other 3 or 4 maxed skills in situations that made Blizzard tactically unuseable. So just because your playstyle differs, don't assume everyone else is the same.
Which encourages party play to bring along someone who can (such as a Fire/Lightning sorc or *gasp* another character type such as a Berzerk barb). This argument is dumb because D3 is going to be the same way, just look at the Wizard tree. Instead of spending, say 20 points on Frost Nova in D2 to max out the synergy and get two useful skills, in D3 you get 1 useful skill and have to max synergies that have no active effect.
Oh, you mean like Cold Mastery? You did play D2 right?
Right, what you're actually getting is a trumped and hyped up Gauntlet 3, not Diablo 3.
As in WoW, this doesn't mean you'll be able to use all skills at maximum effectiveness, is means you'll be pigeonholed into using even fewer skills than in D2. Again, look at the current Wizard tree, its something like 5 or 6 active skills per tree and then a bunch of 15 point synergies. So instead of using multiple skills that are effective even at low levels as in D2, such as the utility Lightning spells or the Barbs passives, you'll have to decide on one or two skills to use the entire game and max out the synergy. Yay for boring.
Balance changes is all. A build that can mow down everything without help is not exactly conducive to party play is it, which is why they made tri-element builds tough to manage. But I had no problems being effective as a Fire/Lightning or Cold/Lightning sorc.
And my Bowazon worked perfectly fine with average gear, I didn't need Windforce or any of the uber Runewords, it just meant killing slower in an effort to enact playbalance. And my Frenzy/Zerk Barb tore through crap like it was nobody's business. Perhaps you just sucked at the game?
Balance. And you're complaining that your one character that was unstoppable was FORCED to rely on cooperation and others for support. Sounds odd that you guys are touting cooperation and party play, yet deride it in the game that preceds this one.
Right, because the fact that you used one skill and were angry when that didn't work anymore meant everyone was the same. Not everyone is a moron, all of my D2 characters were versatile and able to solo almost anywhere, but of course the questing part was more fun when you played with others who weren't spam bots or leechers.
No, I criticize games while still in the development stage so that the developers can get input back on the features in question. It only sounds like whining to those who are content to let games be spoonfed to them.
And as one recent interview mentioned that the P2P features are more in line with things like server transfers, the development cycle still has a long way to go. Unless the devs know what we want NOW, once the game is released it will be too late to change the base coding.
Thinking is your friend.
If you like a game that is still months and years away from release, based on alpha testing and hype, then yes.
0
How much of a monthly fee do you pay for Team Fortress 2 after you buy it? Straight up comparing is valid, Steam = Battle.Net, TF2/D3 standalone game. Get it right.
Of course they won't release it for free, my comments to that were meant to illustrate the fact that Blizzard makes so much money that they could afford to and not be heavily impacted. But I never said they should or even that we deserve it.
So despite the fact that you're wrong on almost every post you make, you still know what the entire gaming community is going to do? Okay....
0
Reading comprehension is your friend.
I never stated that GW makes the same amount as WoW. I said one uses a different business model than the other, and both are successful, especially given that GW is the IPO of a startup company, while WoW is built upon a huge fanbase from games that were released as far back as 1994...
You're far from knowing what constitutes a valid argument, why not let the adults handle it?
Massive campaigns, several new units built upon the same storyline and engine.
Small world additions, 1 new race/class, built upon the same storyline and engine. And the intent is to eventually streamline those additions into the existing world, UNLIKE the RTS and Diablo expansions.
D3 doing any sort of P2P feature whether monthly or micro is a deal breaker for me, not because its worthy or not, but because the scope of the game is SO small compared to the likes of games like WoW.
$15 a month is a HUGE amount of money relative to the benefit you get, a 4 person max game built ontop of a GUI chat server. And regardless of whether its a lot of money or not, trying to squeeze blood from the stone of the playerbase is an especially foolish move given the state of the world economy.
Its basically the same thing as giant financial institutions, through horrible corporate mismanagement getting bailed out. Blizzard makes money hand over fist, and to claim that they have to monetize features to survive is basically them saying we're a bunch of idiots and sheep.
0
Ooh yay, another item grind game.
You might want to check your facts before making wild statements such as this. Show me where in WoW is the linear Act system, henchmen, etc. Diablo 2 used 100% of D1 features, they just got expanded upon and refined.
If you knew even basic genetics, the chicken. This is no longer a zen question, stick with the tree falling metaphor.
0
Yes, it did.
Hmmm... a game that FORCES people to play with someone they don't want to. I can't imagine where this might lead, such as spam bots constantly joining 3/4 games and advertising, or newbs doing the same and begging for whatever items pass for currency. Luckily we the player won't be able to avoid this situation since apparently no kick/boot controls will be given to the game's creator.
Are you high?
So exactly what in D2 changed between when you started and now? Could it be that the game is 8 years old and that most of your friends have moved on? And your point is irrelevant anyways, since the party functionality within D2 hasn't changed.
FORCING people to co-op play will just mean a plethora of people creating more 1 player only locked games, further bogging down the servers. In addition, the annoyance factor is incredibly high, given the nature of online gaming.
Taking away a player's options in a sequel is stupid. You add to, never subtract from, that's just poor or lazy design.
0
Are you familiar with Guild Wars? They purposefully chose an expansion based system as their business model, for a variety of reasons but also mainly to not compete with WoW. And according to their model of releasing regular priced expansions at regular intervals, they pull in roughly the same amount of money as a P2P subscription system with streamed content.
WoW not only charges P2P, but ALSO charges for expansions. So how does that fit into the either/or theory you guys expound? His assertion is wrong based on fact, UNLESS WoTLK is released as a FREE downloadable expansion, in which case he will be proven right. Ask me how likely I think that will be, no seriously go ahead...
And again, because of Blizzard's immense commercial success, their business models are not as hampered by limited cash flow as some others.
0
lmaooo...
Most game developers already do all of that for their online capable games. You know what they charge?
ZERO $.
No one should pay for gameplay balancing that should have been completed in beta. And developers these days are notorious for releasing games before they're done and adding in deleted content later as "added material." As an example, in the game Oblivion, there were many files in the Construction Set that were placeholders for official "DLC" released later on a microtransaction basis.
Whether it was due to the game being rushed or because it was intentional is irrelevant. What should have happened was the missing content be added back in as a content patch such as companies like Arena.Net and Valve do all the time.
Also, charging fees is a slippery slope, and once started the fees continue to get higher until subscribers start to flee, which is then the market maximum. For me, given D3's dearth of features compared to a game like WoW, that maximum is $0.
0
According to your logic then, Lord of Destruction could never have been released. Or Brood War for that matter. Or Beyond the Dark Portal, and the Frozen Throne. All expansions that were developed and released without any prior P2P content.
Amazing what a little research can do! :thumbsup:
0
You might want to recount. Here:
http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15288
What you're counting are synergies.
All I was saying is that a tile system with size encumbrance is more realistic.
A rather strong statement considering your entire post is based on a false assumption.
There aren't more skills and the assumption of more items with more diversity is based off a false assumption. GIVEN that the current idea is for automatic stats, the newly pigeonholed classes won't need as varied an assortment of items since all classes will eventually need the same ones.
Please tell me how a system that restricts builds to skill specialization is more diverse than a system that uses both skill specialization and stat placement?
How exactly? In D2, what you call "skill empowerment" was released as skill synergies with the advent of the LoD expansion. So how does D3's 3 avenues of customization add up to more than D2's 4? That's screwy math if you ask me.
Class customization is mechanics, most build discussion in ANY game capable of choosing customized classes does not include sex or even race since those are largely cosmetic in nature and offer no inherent bonus or penalty. Stats a boring attribute? Tell that to people who had a great time playing Singing Barbs and Energy Sorcs.
Might want to look into a mirror sometime. Although, if you're honest with yourself, you may not like what you see...